4 ms·

Highly disturbing that the court is allowed to request that much data without any legal restrictions [on privacy].

munk-a 7y ago
I don't know why you think there aren't any legal restrictions - this wasn't a random LEO going cowboy and trying to hack into google, a judge directly ordered this action and signed onto the warrants.
- alexfromapex 7y ago
  I mean as far as privacy is concerned. They were able to request all text messages, documents, location data, voicemails without any stipulation that they were relevant to the case.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Well, yeah. They have to go through them to determine if they're relevant. Same reason a physical search warrant will let the cops seize a vaguely defined bunch of stuff from your house. In particularly sensitive cases, the judge may appoint an official to be a go-between between the evidence and the prosecution. For example: https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/04/26/special-master-evidence-seized-michael-cohen/ https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/04/26/special-master-evidenc...
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The court order is the determination that the information has enough probability of being relevant that it needs to be turned over to be reviewed.
akiselev 7y ago
The courts are the legal restriction. The way in which the evidence collected can be challenge in the appellate courts.
- alexfromapex 7y ago
  I realize that didn’t expect to be taken so literally.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    Ambiguity isn't always an effective rhetorical device, especially on an internet that has fallen prey to the law of averages.
doodliego 7y ago
This is a court-authorized search warrant authorized by a aitting judge. It doesn't get any more legal than that, and it's Google or any other company's legal duty to comply.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  It certainly can get more legal than that -- Google (or the target, if they somehow found out) could appeal against the warrant, which would result in another round in the courts.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    More optimally Google could decline to collect this information and would thereby be immune to any such requests. When it comes to Gmail they could take an approach like password managers where the user's password is instrumental to decrypt the data and Google lacks any manner to circumvent the encryption - they just choose not to.
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      I would be all for Google not collecting this info -- that's what I've always done in my startups. Privacy by design is a great thing. However, my point was that the comment I replied to was factually wrong -- there is legal action Google could choose to take instead of immediately complying.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        I agree and didn't mean to directly go against what you said - but I wanted to make sure it's highlighted and known that Google exposed themselves to this risk voluntarily.

I don't know why you think there aren't any legal restrictions - this wasn't a random LEO going cowboy and trying to hack into google, a judge directly ordered this action and signed onto the warrants.

alexfromapex 7y ago
I mean as far as privacy is concerned. They were able to request all text messages, documents, location data, voicemails without any stipulation that they were relevant to the case.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Well, yeah. They have to go through them to determine if they're relevant. Same reason a physical search warrant will let the cops seize a vaguely defined bunch of stuff from your house. In particularly sensitive cases, the judge may appoint an official to be a go-between between the evidence and the prosecution. For example: https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/04/26/special-master-evidence-seized-michael-cohen/ https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/04/26/special-master-evidenc...
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The court order is the determination that the information has enough probability of being relevant that it needs to be turned over to be reviewed.

akiselev 7y ago

The courts are the legal restriction. The way in which the evidence collected can be challenge in the appellate courts.

alexfromapex 7y ago
I realize that didn’t expect to be taken so literally.
- akiselev 7y ago
  Ambiguity isn't always an effective rhetorical device, especially on an internet that has fallen prey to the law of averages.

doodliego 7y ago

This is a court-authorized search warrant authorized by a aitting judge. It doesn't get any more legal than that, and it's Google or any other company's legal duty to comply.

greglindahl 7y ago
It certainly can get more legal than that -- Google (or the target, if they somehow found out) could appeal against the warrant, which would result in another round in the courts.
- munk-a 7y ago
  More optimally Google could decline to collect this information and would thereby be immune to any such requests. When it comes to Gmail they could take an approach like password managers where the user's password is instrumental to decrypt the data and Google lacks any manner to circumvent the encryption - they just choose not to.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    I would be all for Google not collecting this info -- that's what I've always done in my startups. Privacy by design is a great thing. However, my point was that the comment I replied to was factually wrong -- there is legal action Google could choose to take instead of immediately complying.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I agree and didn't mean to directly go against what you said - but I wanted to make sure it's highlighted and known that Google exposed themselves to this risk voluntarily.